Excellent point. I suppose it could be tweaked a bit. Make some more difficult NO’s, and perhaps not add any units. I’d put an infantry in British Columbia and that’s about it. I’m not terribly good at the game and I’d prefer to have more playing options to have more fun. I’m not really worried about balance issues since I’d probably lose anyway, even if I gave Canada 10 battleships at the start. But I can understand from your point of view.

Precisely, and it should be remembered that the Home Islands of Japan were overpopulated and unsustainable without imports of food. Just like Britain, except that the US Navy managed to do to Japan what the Germans tried to do to England. The Japanese were being starved, and since they had no fleet they had no further means of effectively resisting. Their troops were scattered and isolated with no way of getting back to Japan and no way of preventing American and British forces from eventually throwing them out. So Japan already knew the gig was up long before the A-Bombs were dropped.

He was only trying to help us out. No need to be rude and say his ideas are total crap. I actually think it’s worse for the Allies, less income for UK Europe, so Sealion is more viable. Having an independent Canada is pretty sorry compensation if you lose London.

They don’t ever submit. That’s the whole point. I cannot think of single example where this happened besides Japan in WWII. The French used terror tactics (killing civilians in retaliation for French casualties) on the Spanish and that just caused the Spanish to resist even more fiercely. The Germans did that in Russia and in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Resistance was intense in those areas, whereas in Denmark or the Netherlands, where German occupation was relatively benign, there was very little resistance. All the examples in history go against the use of terror on civilians instead of for it.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were very different from carpet bombing. Furthermore the UK, USA, and USSR had just beaten Germany into the dirt, and Germany was a much stronger country than Japan. So Japan was at war with those three, as well as France, China, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada etc. with no fleet. They were bound to surrender anyway. I wouldn’t argue that they would have surrendered with or without the bombs, but they couldn’t long resist a landing in Japan itself. All examples of conventional air forces attempting to bomb their enemies into submission have been failures. The Spanish Nationalists could not do it to the Spanish Republicans, the Germans could not to it to the British, and the British and Americans could not do it to the Germans. Other examples would include Vietnam, where the US dropped more bombs than they did on Germany, and they still lost the war. It’s not as decisive as it’s made out to be. As for sieges, that’s a very different operation, where the intention was to take physical possession of a given location, whether it be a proper fortress or a fortified town. In carpet bombing the hope is that you can force a capitulation without needing to occupy the enemy’s territory. Besides, in Medieval Wars objectives were very limited, the entire overthrow of your adversary was practically impossible, so a well conducted siege might get you some small concessions. Carpet bombing would imply you desire the total destruction of your enemy’s war making capacity, which was simply an unattainable goal in previous centuries. Even much later than Medieval times, heck, in the 9 Years War France alone withstood all the other Great Powers of Europe and neither side achieved hardly anything.

Well Grant defeated the main Confederate Army, and his victory at Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in two. A brilliant achievement militarily. Anyhow, the purpose of the Army (defined by Clausewitz, who attributed the idea to Napoleon) is to destroy your enemy’s ability to prosecute war, i.e. defeating them in the field. If they still have an army they will not surrender, no matter how much terror you cause.

@Cmdr:

And it was hardly ineffective!  Sure, they might not have hit their targets all the time, with 100% precision and accuracy, but the goal in any war is to get the enemy population so sick of losing they force their leaders to capitulate.  It’s why Sherman was a pioneer (an a**, but a pioneer!) in warfare.

That was the argument of Giulio Douhet, which was thoroughly debunked during WWII and also the Spanish Civil War. Cities could be blown to pieces and the population would still have no intention of capitulation. Germany only surrendered after it was physically occupied by the Allies. No amount of carpet bombing ever broke any nation. Also the Confederate States of America did not surrender because of Sherman, they surrendered because their forces in the field were decisively defeated and they had no means of further prosecution. Terror tactics generally create more resistance rather than extinguish it.

The Historical Strategic Bombing Campaign was the US and UK’s way of showing the Russians (and themselves?) that they were doing SOMETHING against Germany, because before 1944 the Russians were tangoing with pretty much the entire German Army and Luftwaffe. So naturally Western writers would prefer to pretend their SBR was decisive instead of admitting that “The US and UK bombed Germany to little affect while the Russians did all the actual fighting at the time.” Albert Speer thoroughly debunked that in his memoirs, Germany’s production actually INCREASED during the bombing campaign, instead of decreasing. Pretty pathetic performance in my opinion, complete waste. It was a total political tool to satisfy the Russians.

EDIT: Bear in mind this is in relation to the war against Germany only. I’m well aware that the British wrecked the Italians and the Vichy French, and fought hard in Greece, Norway, France etc, and were also engaged in heavy fighting in Burma. I’m also well aware that the Americans primarily defeated Japan, and helped defeat Italy and eventually Germany. The Russians bore most of the brunt against Germany, but did hardly anything to Japan or Italy, so no need to inform me of what the Americans and British were doing (which was much more than nothing), as I’m perfectly aware.

Alright, I understand now about convoys. Also, one more question concerning the AA, do Major and/or Minor Industrial Complexes have built in AA as well?

I have a question for Krieghund as well, and I figured it would be easier to ask it here than to post a new thread. So, I want to know how convoys contribute to Allied income, and what the whole deal with them is. Also, it says in the rulebook that Air Bases and Naval Bases have AA capacity, does that mean if there’s a spot with an Air Base, Naval Base, and AA that all three fire at attacking planes, or just one?

@oztea:

This is a thread with some discussion on the matter
And here are the rules themselves, in essence, tweaked slightly to compensate for the 6 months that have passed since.

The ANZAC pieces (Dark Grey) are used to represent the new power “UK Commonwealth”
The Commonwealth takes one turn, but has a split economy (Exactly the same as the UK Europe/Pacific split).
The Economies are:
10 IPCs : ANZAC; Capital is Sidney (all territories marked with the ANZAC roundel)
7 IPCs :Canada; Capital is Ottawa (all territoreis marked with the Canadian roundel)

The following rule changes are made to accomidate the new Commonweath power
Game Mechanics:
-Commonwealth forces may choose to conquer enemy territory on behalf of the United Kingdom power instead of themselves if they desire.
-The Commonwealth may assume control of United Kingdom territory as if it was Dutch if the UK capital in that theatre has been captured.

Setup:
Do not place United Kingdom Units in Ontario, Quebec, or Sea Zone 106 during setup. Instead follow this setup for Canada, using Commonwealth (Dark Grey) units
British Columbia - 1 Infantry
Ontario - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Minor Industrial Complex
Quebec - 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Artillery, Minor Industrial Complex
New Brunswick/Nova Scotia - Naval Base
United Kingdom - 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 123 - Destroyer
Sea Zone 106 - Destroyer, Transport

Modify the Alpha+ 2 Setup Accordingly

United Kingdom:
Gibraltar - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Iceland - 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 123 - Transport

Germany:
SZ 114 - 1 Sub

ANZAC:
New Zeland - 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, Minor Industrial Complex

National Objectives:
United Kingdom:
Replace the United Kingdom “control all original territory” objectives with:

5 IPCs for the European economy if all Canadain territories are controled, as well as Egypt and Gibraltar and Sea Zone 109 is free of enemy ships.

5 IPCs for the Pacifc economy (India) if all ANZAC territories are controled, as well as Malya and Kwangtung and Sea Zone 39 is free of enemy ships. Also the UK is at war with Japan

Commonwealth:
The ANZAC economy benifits from its normal National Objectives, these IPCs go to the ANZAC economy only. The Canadain economy can benifit from the following National Objectives:

5 IPCs if all Allied convoy zones on the European map are free of enemy ships
(Convoy zones adjacent to a currently controled Allied territory on the Europe game board)

5 IPCs if the United States is at war with the Axis Powers

Notes:
The Commonwealth conducts research and development as a single power.
The United Kingdom European economy begins the game at 21, the Pacific economy begins the game at 17.
Use ANZAC roundels (or the “union jack” roundel) to denote Canadian conquests.

I love it. Very well thought out and superb. Thank you for sharing that.